A review and meta-analysis of anti-ribosomal P autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of autoantibodies to ribosomal proteins (anti-RibP) dates back more than fifty years when antibodies to ribosomes were identified in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) sera. Over the years, anti-RibP autoantibodies have been the subject of extensive study and became known as a highly specific biomarker for the diagnosis of SLE and were associated with neuropsychiatric SLE (NPSLE), lupus nephritis (LN) and hepatitis (LH). As demonstrated by studies on cultured human cells and of murine models, there is evidence to suggest that anti-RibP may have a pathogenic role in LN and NPSLE. Despite a wealth of evidence, in comparison to other SLE autoantibodies such as anti-Sm and anti-dsDNA, anti-RibP has not been included in classification criteria for SLE. A significant challenge is the variability of assays used to detect anti-RibP, including the antigens and diagnostic platforms employed. This may account for the marked variation in frequencies (10-47%) in SLE and its association with clinical and demographic features reported in SLE cohorts. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to help clarify its prevalence, various clinical and serological associations in SLE based on the different RibP antigens and assay platforms used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.046 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it